Forum name

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 16, 2008

icedragon101 said:
WE are talking Word association.... progressive is associated in the SDA church with rebel or heritic. Have you forgotten why we split the fourm in the first place.

No one has forgotten why and no one bes unknowsy of how the term bes wrongly applied among the trad SDAs. What this one bes saying bes why do you buy into their twisted concepts what clearly bes falsehoods? Just because enemies of forward thinking want to associate the word with "heretic" does not mean they bes right and those they insult automatically bes wrong. And you say "rebel" and "heretic" like those bes bad things. They bes excellent things!!! Christ pronounced us BLESSED who suffered those epithets from those meaning them as denigrating. HE HIMSELF got accused of being demon possessed, insane, and working miracles by the power of Beelzebub!!! So blessed we bes indeed when those claiming His name as their exclusive patent want to lump us in that pit and call us heretics and rebels ... AMEN!!! It bes heretic against toxic soteriology -- YES!! It bes REBEL against them filthy lies of Phariseeism pretending to be some grand deep truth of which the Gospel by comparison bes considered some kind of spiritual "kindergarten" -- HALLELUIA! JC says take them Kingdom likesy little child!!! All RIGHT!!!

So you see we have every reason to glory in controversial names with supposedly "bad" associations when it bes our detractors, them what passes judgments and condemns and criticizes, contrary to JC's teaching they should not cast a stone if they have sin of their own, what uses those names for us. We should GLORY in that!!! We bes BLESSED because they callsy heretics and rebels just like them Pharisees blamed Christ for being blasphemous and working by the power of the devil!!

I want conservatives who would other wise not consider progressive ideas to come to this forum, but since they have an unfavorable view of the term progressive they will stay away.

With all due respect, if a mere word bes sufficient to drive them away, they bes makesy excuses and sellsy you a wind-up. They never intended to come here in the first place if they bes wont whats treatsy mere word like an iron bar on the door.

Think of it as a marketing tool to draw people in.

Guess our goals for this subforum bes different then. Moriah has no need to "draw" people in. Moriah wants to see those come what needs a safe haven from the bombardment of ultra-conservatives, trads, historicals, the whole miserable legalistic camp with their toxic soteriology poisoning and shipwrecking the faith of millions. Those whats needing a safe haven will be drawn here by the quality of conversations we have and the evidence of open minds and intelligent, compassionate lifeforms engaging in dialogue about a loving God we respect too much to lower the bar for beneath the basic expectations of human decency in the name of religion.

You know if it is only progressive it will have a negitive connation, while the dictionary term may be foreward thinking the adventist association is backslider. Moderate dose not fit the bill and Evanglical is the only thing that will do it, it is the only one that say we still believe the bible and jesus as Lord, we just think a little differently about things. Moderate & Progressive dose not convery that idea.

OK, it thinks it basically understands your concerns here. But once more it would urge you to stick with real Reality, not pseudo-reality as defined and mapped by those who invent these bad associations like backslider, etc. You don't need to subscribe to -- and consequently bow down before and bend your thoughts around -- the rhetoric and propaganda manufactured by them. Nor do you need to fear that a mere single word will bar the gates against those needing and wanting a safe haven and those with open minds and functional intelligence. Why should we "market" ourselves, in other words? Why not instead let our authenticity shine and thus attract other persons who value authenticity in their lives? Moriah prefers being unvarnished, authentic, and honest, and letting that attract those who appreciate those attributes and share those values.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 16, 2008

Ok I did some research and I am ok with Evangelical instead of moderate. There is some scholarly material out there describing evangelical Adventists (there was in the 1800's a denomination called Evangelical Adventists) A good one is found as a word document at:
Evangelical Adventism—Questions on Doctrine’s Legacy

I googled some of the key TSDA to see if they ever called themselves Evangelical Adventists. And I really can't find them using the term so if Doug Batchelor does not use it and the people at GreatControversy.com declare it the same as "new theology" see:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot6.php
the term most not be acceptable to TSDA. And that was my main concern that if they used the fundamentalist use of Evangelical then we would be inviting them back here.

There are a few instances of it used in the Adventist Review such as this at http://www.dennispriebe.com/documents/Evangelicals and Adventists Together.html

In the April, 1997 Adventist Review there appeared an article with the title “Will the Real Evangelical Adventist Please Stand Up.” In it were these statements: “I consider myself a true evangelical Adventist. I hope you do too.... I wish everyone in the church were an evangelical Adventist, because inherent in the word ‘Adventist’ should be the concept of ‘evangelical’ ” "What is it, then, to be evangelical,” and particularly to be an “evangelical Adventist?” We need to know what that means? We can’t just use a word and assume that everyone knows what it means. The first thing to understand is that “evangelical” is not a synonym for “evangelistic.” Now Evangelicals are evangelistic in their outlook, as they endeavor to lead people to the new birth. But the term “evangelical” is broader than that, and it defines a certain group with definite beliefs.

A few weeks after this article appeared in the Adventist Review an individual wrote, “As a Christian broadcaster at KARM radio, I come into contact with many of other denominations who call themselves ‘evangelical Christians.’ I feel a very definite connection with these dear brothers and sisters as we look at the cross. They and I are all saved by faith in Jesus... This article gave me the confidence to move forward, proudly claiming the title of an evangelical Christian.” (June 12, 1997)

Perhaps we need to understand a bit of history right here. Before 1955 nothing was ever mentioned about being an evangelical Adventist. But then some discussions took place between the leaders of our church and the Evangelical leaders Barnhouse and Martin. Since that time Adventists have been a little more comfortable with the term “evangelical,” and coincidently, there has been considerable turmoil in the Adventist Church over the meaning of the gospel.

To be completely fair with the evidence, we need to ask an Evangelical what is meant by the term “evangelical." Kenneth Samples has written some very fair and objective articles about what he has seen happening in the Adventist Church. but what I am most interested in is his statement of the differences between evangelical and traditional Adventism.

By the mid 1970’s, two distinct factions had emerged within SDA. Traditional Adventism, which defended many pre-1950 Adventist positions, and Evangelical Adventism, which emphasized the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith. This controversy soon gave way to a full-blown internal crisis which severely fragmented the denomination...

The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. However, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority....

The following positions were taken by Traditional Adventism in response to the doctrinal debates:
1) Righteousness by faith: Righteousness by faith included both justification and sanctification. Our standing before God rests both in the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ (God’s work for me and in me). Justification is for sins committed in the past only.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a human nature that not only was weakened by sin, but had propensities toward sin itself. His nature was like that of Adam after the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus entered into the second compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time on October 22, 1844, and began an investigative judgment. This judgment is the fulfillment of the second phase of Christ’s atoning work.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing before God rests in both the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ;... As Jesus, our example, showed us, perfect commandment keeping is possible.
5) The authority of Ellen G. White: The spirit of prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White as a sign of the remnant church. Her writings are inspired counsel from the Lord and authoritative in doctrinal matters....

As the above doctrinal comparison showed, the differ�ences between these two factions were indeed significant. The differences could essentially be reduced to:
1) the question of authority (sola scriptura vs. Scripture plus Ellen White), and 2) the question of salvation (imputed righteousness vs. imparted righteousness). [Christian Research Journal, Summer, 1988]

The above article is against Evangelical Adventist as he concludes:

When Elder Robert Pierson retired from the Presidency of the General Conference, he pled with our leaders and our educational institutions to be loyal to the pillars of our faith. “Already, brethren and sisters, there are subtle forces that are beginning to stir... .There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There are those who covet and would court the favor of the Evangelicals; who would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way of the secular, materialistic world....Fellow leaders, beloved brethren and sisters, do not let it happen! I appeal to you as earnestly as I know how this morning. Do not let it happen! I appeal to Andrews University, to the seminary, to Loma Linda University. Do not let it happen! We are not Seventh-day Anglicans, not Seventh-day Lutherans. We are Seventh-day Adventists! This is God’s last church with God’s last message.” (Adventist Review, October 26, 1978)

The question comes back to us with full force? Are we to be Evangelical Seventh-day Adventists? Is this the way Adventism will fulfill its mission as a movement of prophecy? Or is this Satan’s plan to deceive “the very elect” and derail Adventism right on the borders of the Promised Land? It is always the hidden danger that is most likely to trip us up, and I believe that this is the greatest hidden danger we are now facing. Where did the real danger to the inhabitants of Troy lie? Was it from the armies outside the walls, or the innocent-looking wooden horse they had just pulled within the city gates? Where no danger is obvious, the greatest danger exists. We are inviting Evangelicalism within our gates right now, and we are urging all Adventists to be Evangelical. As we read articles and listen to sermons, are we in danger of saying "Amen" in all the wrong places? We need to be more perceptive listeners and readers, so that the difference between Truth and Error is sharply apparent. We can only complete our mission and fulfill our destiny if we are real Seventh-day Adventists. Let us never dilute our gospel with a gospel which is really no gospel at all, but the most clever counterfeit Satan has ever devised to confuse Christians and discredit God.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 16, 2008

Confusing to say the least.

That last quote could be taken a couple major different ways depending on what definition one gave "evangelicalism" in the context of that article.

moicherie · Apr 17, 2008

Maybe we should just calls ourselves Non Traditional Adventists - that should cover just about everyone. lol
And have a debate section that people who are not Adventists can converse in.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 17, 2008

moicherie said:
Maybe we should just calls ourselves Non Traditional Adventists - that should cover just about everyone. lol
And have a debate section that people who are not Adventists can converse in.

The problem with that is that non-traditional opens the door for people like Eugene or the Creation 7th day Adventist and that whole conservative section that populates the fringe who thinks the Adventist church is run by Jesuits.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 17, 2008

moicherie said:
Maybe we should just calls ourselves Non Traditional Adventists - that should cover just about everyone. lol
And have a debate section that people who are not Adventists can converse in.

Non-traditional AND FORMER!!
Don't forget us FORMERs!!!

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 17, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
The problem with that is that non-traditional opens the door for people like Eugene or the Creation 7th day Adventist and that whole conservative section that populates the fringe who thinks the Adventist church is run by Jesuits.

Ugh, good point. We don't want those particular bitter herbs in our stew.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 17, 2008

What about substituting the word "ecumenical" for "evangelical"?
"Ecumenical" bes more accurate anyway -- and just as wrongfully vilified by the trads!!

Progressive, moderate, ecumenical and former Adventists.

Or hey ... how about EVOLVED ... LOL ... that would really get someone's goat eyh?

Progressive, moderate, EVOLVED and Former Adventists ....

Aw heck let's go for broke:

Recovering and Now Christ-centered Adventists and former Adventists.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 17, 2008

Did you see this:
From Reddogs:

'Moderates' are by definition not extreme and I would say respectful of Adventist beliefs so I dont see a issue. I have always seen myself as a moderate as I 'believe but question' in order that my faith grows and strenghthens as the spirit unveils truth and understading.
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46009193&postcount=10

Of course I would also wager Red thinks he is evangelical.

Sophia7 · Apr 17, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
Did you see this:
From Reddogs:

Of course I would also wager Red thinks he is evangelical.

They don't even understand how their FSGs exclude moderates, do they?

freeindeed2 · Apr 17, 2008

Sophia7 said:
They don't even understand how their FSGs exclude moderates, do they?

Consistently inconsistent.

Adventist Dissident · Apr 18, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
Ok I did some research and I am ok with Evangelical instead of moderate. There is some scholarly material out there describing evangelical Adventists (there was in the 1800's a denomination called Evangelical Adventists) A good one is found as a word document at:
Evangelical AdventismQuestions on Doctrines Legacy

Click to expand...

Thanks for the support RC

Adventist Dissident · Apr 18, 2008

The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a source of doctrinal authority....

Now that is an Evanglical Adventist Statment

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 18, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
Did you see this:
From Reddogs:
Of course I would also wager Red thinks he is evangelical.

Sophia7 said:
They don't even understand how their FSGs exclude moderates, do they?

freeindeed2 said:
Consistently inconsistent.

The response from T&O bes interesting ...

Catmommy, I think you may be under the wrong assumption about something. We never asked the moderates to leave so there really is no need for us to take them "back". This split was the Progressives' brainchild along with their moderator.

We didn't ask them to leave, we had no part in naming their forum, etc.

Right, you folks just made the entire atmosphere so sour, nasty, rife with paranoia and spite reporting and backstabbing and vicious harpying that they felt driven out to seek some place for a little peace.

Oh and notice you did it all by yourselves. Can't blame Moriah (Satan) for that one, can you.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 18, 2008

Hi Ice. Hope you don't mind if Moriah plays a bit with this. It bes not seeksy debatings only springboarding to clarify its own present understandings.

icedragon101 said:
The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christs own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christs human nature was like that of Adams before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christs imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. I would change this to "was a person who professed Chrisitianity and many believe she had prophetic authority, but we believe she dis not have prophetic authourity, but was a pawn of others. her writing are on a soure of devotional value only.reflecting her personal beliefs and personal understanding of the Sda postion, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority....

Now that is an Evanglical Adventist Statment

(1) Big major complete total

Would only add to that the simple fact in tandem that the only guarantee for not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh -- yes, even AFTER coming to Christ initially -- bes walking in the Spirit, and we do not automatically do that 100% perfectly 24/7. However, any given moment where we bes not totally immersed does not, by default, become a moment in which salvation bes lost until we "behave right" again. That kind of thinking bes putsy us under the law again, the old schoolmaster, instead of relating us to Christ from the basis of His completed work and the total mercy of God on us as sinners.

(2) Now here bes where we diverge. Though Moriah bes not 100% decided or committed on this matter, it has always perceived the MIND of Christ to be sinless and perfect but the FLESH He inherited taking Mary's DNA to be the same flesh we all have, with the "Virus" (sin) in it. Romans 8:3-4 states:
[BIBLE]Romans 8:3-4[/BIBLE]
And again, Hebrews 2:14-18:
[BIBLE]Hebrews 2:14-18[/BIBLE] Hebrews 2:10 indicates He bes perfected BY suffering, and verse 18 as seen above clearly links this suffering with the specific experience of enduring temptation from the flesh and in the flesh. When He stated "the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me" He meant thereby referential to His mind, His will, His focus and aim and character. He bes by that time practiced well in well-doing, and accustomed to resisting evil.

(3) The whole 1844 business ... has no bearing on Moriah's relationship with the Most High nor upon its understanding of the eschaton, really, beyond a vague marker in time past which the modern world and the end of days ensues. During the formative period of the nascent SDA church, its leaders seized upon the date and shifted its relevance from the wrongfully predicted time of the parousia (which they ought to have known better with the verse "no man knoweth the day nor the hour" in their faces 24/7 ...) to a focal point for establishment of a self-serving meta-narrative to assign these denominational vagabonds, cut loose adrift without a church home any longer, a permanent central role in the unfolding apocalypse and thereby to attempt to salvage the self-styled legitimacy of their rather abrupt withdrawal from the larger body of Christendom. The "Great Disappointment" becomes an exercise in the extremities of "cat logic" wherein they shakesy selves off, tossies them heads in the air, and proclaims they "meant to do that" all along, as a means of whitewashing their blatant theological and eschatological blunders. *shrug* No offense but Moriah does not buy the meta-narrative any longer. It has no reason to, any more than it has reason to buy into the notion that the United States bes premier and every other nation and its concerns bes secondary, merely because it bes born here.

To be fair and give credit where due, though, a great deal of its core theological oeuvre owes itself to the discoveries and wanderings of the SDA movement, and it will always feel a special kinship with them and a greater appreciation for their calculations upon the eschaton than that of most other sects, provided they have learnt the lesson indeed and never again resort to date-setting.

(4) Spot on. Whether or not "sinless perfection" bes possible in this lifetime (and Moriah does not believe it possible at any time before this mortal puts on immortality), the FACT remains that the ONLY assurance of salvation lies in Christ and HIS completed and perfect work ... NOT anything produced by ourselves, not even that produced "in His strength" or out of devotion to Him, NOT even that which His Spirit creates in and through us as a result of receiving the imputation of His completed work which constitutes the core of the personal experience of salvation. Excellent statement.

(5) Again, Ellen White bes immaterial and irrelevant insofar as salvation, faith in Christ, etc. bes concerned, at least for Moriah. EG White wrote many beautiful and treasured things about Christ and about God which ring true, evince prophetic insight, and enhance one's understanding about God. Unfortunately EG White also wrote many confused and ham-handed things which sound a dissonant note, evince some seriously flawed human reasoning, and detract from one's ability to comprehend God or to enter fellowship with Him. None of which needs to result in passing judgment on her heart or intentions -- leave those to God Himself. But it does argue quite soundly against using any of her writings as authoritative to establish faith praxis or doctrine. With all due respect that would be like basing scientific theory on the exuberant proclamations of a preschooler concerning the color of the sky or the wetness of rain. Charming, at times. Authoritative? Heavens no.

moicherie · Apr 18, 2008

Moriah_Conquering_Wind said:
What about substituting the word "ecumenical" for "evangelical"?
"Ecumenical" bes more accurate anyway -- and just as wrongfully vilified by the trads!!

Progressive, moderate, ecumenical and former Adventists.

Or hey ... how about EVOLVED ... LOL ... that would really get someone's goat eyh?

Progressive, moderate, EVOLVED and Former Adventists ....

Aw heck let's go for broke:

Recovering and Now Christ-centered Adventists and former Adventists.

How about 'Anyone but Conservative/Jesuit/Tare hunting Adventists -hehehehehe

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 18, 2008

icedragon101 said:
The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. I would change this to "was a person who professed Chrisitianity and many believe she had prophetic authority, but we believe she dis not have prophetic authourity, but was a pawn of others. her writing are on a soure of devotional value only.reflecting her personal beliefs and personal understanding of the Sda postion, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority....

Now that is an Evanglical Adventist Statment

But the statement reflects what his research into Evangelical Adventists is. You may not agree with it though likely at one time you did and you thought of yourself as an evangelical Adventist. Of course the moderate does not a have to agree with such a statement as moderate was anything in between extremes. So you have to decide which is best for our purposes.

Sophia7 · Apr 18, 2008

icedragon101 said:
The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. I would change this to "was a person who professed Chrisitianity and many believe she had prophetic authority, but we believe she dis not have prophetic authourity, but was a pawn of others. her writing are on a soure of devotional value only.reflecting her personal beliefs and personal understanding of the Sda postion, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority....

Now that is an Evanglical Adventist Statment

I think that blue part needs to be reworded a little because many Evangelical Adventists do believe that she was a prophet but that she had only pastoral authority rather than doctrinal authority.

Adventist Dissident · Apr 18, 2008

RC

the Evanglical name is more in line with Mainline Christinaity then Adventism. It reflects a change of attitude, thinking, & approach to Adventism that is in keeping with what we are trying to do here. That is why we should support it and nurture is. It refelects a bible first and only approach to Adventism. unlike Trad and Conservatives who use EGW as a "contiuning source of authority"

Adventist Dissident · Apr 18, 2008

Sophia7 said:
I think that blue part needs to be reworded a little because many Evangelical Adventists do believe that she was a prophet but that she had only pastoral authority rather than doctrinal authority.

Sophia why should I revise it? it is my prsonal opinion, not an offical statement. If you were think this is an offical stament then I could see why.

Forum name

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

True Brit

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Tall73's Wife

In Christ We Are FREE!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

True Brit

Senior Veteran

Tall73's Wife

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency